Consent order clarification

[ChocoMunchi]

Just wondered if anyone would be kind enough to clarify what this means?

“In the event that an assessment is made by the CMS or any equivalent body against the Respondent in favour of the Applicant the payments set out at clause 14 hereof will be reduced pro tanto.”

Spouse maintenance reduces by the amount of any child maintenance assessment.

There is no spouse maintenance included in the order?

Can you set out precisely what clause 14 says?

What does clause 14 say?

Who is the respondent & who is the applicant? Which is paying child maintenance under clause 14?

Thus is my guess withiut knowing the zbove - I would imagine clause 14 gives a child maintenance figure. If the CMS (Child Maintenance Service) asseses child maintenance at £x, then the figure agreed fir child maintenamce in clause 14 will be reduced by £x.

Thus is my guess withiut knowing the zbove - I would imagine clause 14 gives a child maintenance figure. If the CMS (Child Maintenance Service) asseses child maintenance at £x, then the figure agreed fir child maintenamce in clause 14 will be reduced by £x.

That wouldn't make sense, as the child maintenance order ceases to have effect on CMS doing an assessment. It could only affect a spouse maintenance order.

I thnk we need t know what 14 days. The gist as C says is that if the CMS assess child maintenance (which they can after 12 months from the order I believe) then whatever the sum CMS say is payable for the children is deducted from whatever is in clause 14 (that is the pro tanto bit - to the extent that....) I suppose it is possible that it is just child maintenance in 14. It might say some very big sum (high earner couple, plus obligation to pay for the nanny and school fees etc) in clause 14 but it is not very clear without seeing what clause 14 says,.

14: On completion of the sale of the family home the respondent shall pay to the applicant periodical payments for the benefit of the children of the family at the rate of £xxx per annum, payable monthly in advance by standing order. Such payments shall reduce to £xxx per annum when the oldest child attains 18 years or (if later) ceases ‘A level’ education or the equivalent and cease when the youngest child attains 18 years or ceases ‘A level’ education or the equivalent, whichever occurs last.

There’s no nanny or school fees or SM, just straight forward CM which is actually slightly less than what CMS would have requested but it just wasn’t worth continuing to argue as he was threatening to delay the sale of the house which could’ve meant me and the kids being homeless over xmas.

The clause in your first post on this thread is as much use as a chocolate teapot. The child maintenance order in para 14 ceases to have effect when CMS do an assessment, no matter what that other para says.

I am beginning to wonder if my solicitor is also as much use as a chocolate teacup as well in that case.

She tried to say in the original consent order that she wasn’t separating CM and SM. When I queried it and said there was no SM and I hadn’t asked for it to be included. She wrote to me and charged me £100 for the privilege to say it was too complicated to explain via email/letter the complications of CM/SM and I should make another appointment to go in and discuss.

I am considering contesting the bill at the end of this as I don’t feel I should be charged for a letter she has written that was as a result of a mistake that she made originally.

I suspect that paragraph was left in following her original mistake?

Normally the clause in your first post serves to reduce a spouse maintenance order. Have a look at what you were told this order would do.

I am not a family lawyer but I agree with C. So we were expecting clause 14 to refer to spousal maintenance.

In terms of any loss you have suffered it is probably none as there is very little they can write into a child maintenance clause in a consent order that cannot be undone 12 months later on an application to the CMS. I always found that really weird - that you could agree your consent order and 12 months later undo a bit of it but that seems to be the law.

If you both did not want SM then that's fine but I hope it was explained to you about that. My ex husband wanted SM for life and I wanted zero paid to him for SM and a clean break. So we negotiated and ended up with a larger lump sum pay off for him, no obligations to support children (unless they lived with im) and no SM and a clean break so he cannot come back for more. I think some people go for nominal spousal maintenance fo that if things change later they can go for more. It is a very important question to consider at the time. Sometimes it is best to have it and sometimes not.

On the original question then on its face it says if the CMS orders say £500 a month child maintenance and the clause 14 sum was say £1200 then it seems to be saying you go 1200 less 500 but that does not make sense because both CMS and clause 14 relate to child maintenance. I cannot remember if this order is yet stampded/agreed? If not get it corrected. Also your ex husband would probably want it corrected too as it's unclear.

I thought the CMS assessment totally over took whatever was agreed on child support in the original order (although may be not in cases with high payments for school fees etc like mine). If you could say I am paid £2000 a month child support in the order and then people apply to the CMS and get much less and the result is they still get £2000 a mnoth = so £1500 under order and 500 from CMS then it seems to make a bit of mockery of the right to apply for the CMS to assess child support after 12 months.

If it is the other way round and a low original CM and CMS assess at higher then it does not matter at all as the set off is not going to leave the recipient you any worse off I suppose. Apologies for rambling....

in law if words in a contract do not make sense or are unclear you look to the surrounding circumstances to work out what they mean, emails etc. However for court orders if there is an error you can get them corrected and in fact if both sides realise there is a mistake int here they are usually quick to ask the judge to correct it.